Actress in anti-Islam film sues YouTube on copyright grounds

Says Google ignored five DMCA takedown notices.

A California actress who appeared in the infamous “Innocence of Muslims” flick on YouTube is again asking a federal court to remove the anti-Islam footage that has spawned deadly protests and sparked a US backlash in the Middle East.

The latest development comes days after a Los Angeles County judge refused to take down the film in a previous suit. Garcia argued she was fired from her job, received death threats and was tricked into starring in the “hateful anti-Islamic production.”

In the latest move to have the courts remove the footage, Garcia claims she never signed a model release transferring her intellectual property rights to the maker of the 14-minute YouTube trailer, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula of California. She claims she was duped, and thought she was making an adventure flick, not one in which the prophet Muhammad seemingly engages in oral sex with Garcia’s character.

The federal suit, in addition to naming the producer who uploaded the footage on July 2, targets Google-owned YouTube, which did not remove the film when the actress’ agent sent five takedown notices naming 17 URLs on Sept. 24 and 25. Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, websites like YouTube are immune from an infringement suit if they promptly remove content at the request of a rights holder who asserts infringement.

“We are seeking the legally appropriate mechanism and the least politically controversial one to allow Google and YouTube to do the right thing,” Cris Armenta, Garcia’s lawyer, said in a statement.

Marc Randazza, a copyright attorney in Las Vegas, said in a telephone interview that Garcia does not have a case against YouTube. “The default in an absence of a contractual agreement, the default is the director of the movie owns the copyright,” he said.

The federal lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles federal court, also provides documents that Garcia had applied to register her work with the US Copyright Office.

“Because she did not assign her rights in her dramatic performance, or her copyright interests, nor was the film a ‘work for hire,’ her copyright interests in her own dramatic performance remain intact,” the suit says.

The White House had asked YouTube to review the footage to ensure that it comported with the media giant’s terms of service. YouTube did not remove it from US-based viewers. However, YouTube has blocked the film in several countries, including Egypt, Libya, Indonesia, Malaysia and Saudi Arabia.

I find it *highly unlikely* that any actress expecting to be paid for a job wouldn't have signed a contract that includes a release. I find it even *more* unlikely that anyone PAYING her wouldn't have that release.

If she wasn't paid AND the producer doesn't have a release, she may have grounds here. Anyone want to quote some odds on that? I'm thinking somewhere between long-shot and (sorry) Hail Mary.

This suit, if successful, sounds like it would open some interesting doors that would get a lot more DCMA takedowns and suits against them...someone took a video at a party and someone in the background objects they can get a takedown because they didn't sign a release? I don't really know this is just what came to mind.

I find it *highly unlikely* that any actress expecting to be paid for a job wouldn't have signed a contract that includes a release. I find it even *more* unlikely that anyone PAYING her wouldn't have that release.

If she wasn't paid AND the producer doesn't have a release, she may have grounds here. Anyone want to quote some odds on that? I'm thinking somewhere between long-shot and (sorry) Hail Mary.

This suit, if successful, sounds like it would open some interesting doors that would get a lot more DCMA takedowns and suits against them...someone took a video at a party and someone in the background objects they can get a takedown because they didn't sign a release? I don't really know this is just what came to mind.

What would be interesting is this could be the first time anyone has been punished for false DMCA takedowns, which is supposed to be punished, but apparently is ok for legacy industry players that refuse to learn how to run a modern business.

I find it *highly unlikely* that any actress expecting to be paid for a job wouldn't have signed a contract that includes a release. I find it even *more* unlikely that anyone PAYING her wouldn't have that release.

If she wasn't paid AND the producer doesn't have a release, she may have grounds here. Anyone want to quote some odds on that? I'm thinking somewhere between long-shot and (sorry) Hail Mary.

Given the quality of the movie (/cough)

The odds aren't too bad though

Especially if the Hail Mary is going to be called by the Refs in Monday's Packers game!

I find it *highly unlikely* that any actress expecting to be paid for a job wouldn't have signed a contract that includes a release. I find it even *more* unlikely that anyone PAYING her wouldn't have that release.

If she wasn't paid AND the producer doesn't have a release, she may have grounds here. Anyone want to quote some odds on that? I'm thinking somewhere between long-shot and (sorry) Hail Mary.

Given the quality of the movie (/cough)

The odds aren't too bad though

Especially if the Hail Mary is going to be called by the Refs in Monday's Packers game!

I find it *highly unlikely* that any actress expecting to be paid for a job wouldn't have signed a contract that includes a release. I find it even *more* unlikely that anyone PAYING her wouldn't have that release.

If she wasn't paid AND the producer doesn't have a release, she may have grounds here. Anyone want to quote some odds on that? I'm thinking somewhere between long-shot and (sorry) Hail Mary.

Given the quality of the movie (/cough)

The odds aren't too bad though

Especially if the Hail Mary is going to be called by the Refs in Monday's Packers game!

This suit, if successful, sounds like it would open some interesting doors that would get a lot more DCMA takedowns and suits against them...someone took a video at a party and someone in the background objects they can get a takedown because they didn't sign a release? I don't really know this is just what came to mind.

Quite frankly I don't know that this would be a bad thing. I've had a hell of a time keeping relatives from posting photos that include me on Facebook. I'd love to simply issue a takedown notice whenever I find out about one.

Options to my family and friends: Either keep me off of various internet sites, including FB, or stop including me in your photos. I'm fine with either decision, honestly.

I find it *highly unlikely* that any actress expecting to be paid for a job wouldn't have signed a contract that includes a release. I find it even *more* unlikely that anyone PAYING her wouldn't have that release.

If she wasn't paid AND the producer doesn't have a release, she may have grounds here. Anyone want to quote some odds on that? I'm thinking somewhere between long-shot and (sorry) Hail Mary.

Given the quality of the movie (/cough)

The odds aren't too bad though

Especially if the Hail Mary is going to be called by the Refs in Monday's Packers game!

Refs are coming back this weekend!! Thank God!

This weekend Hell, they will be back for tonight's game.

Don't forget to thank your local Packer fan for taking one for the team to get these guys back!

This suit, if successful, sounds like it would open some interesting doors that would get a lot more DCMA takedowns and suits against them...someone took a video at a party and someone in the background objects they can get a takedown because they didn't sign a release? I don't really know this is just what came to mind.

You could probably attemp to have it taken down on the basis of rights of privacy or publicity or something like that.

I find it *highly unlikely* that any actress expecting to be paid for a job wouldn't have signed a contract that includes a release. I find it even *more* unlikely that anyone PAYING her wouldn't have that release.

If she wasn't paid AND the producer doesn't have a release, she may have grounds here. Anyone want to quote some odds on that? I'm thinking somewhere between long-shot and (sorry) Hail Mary.

Given the quality of the movie (/cough)

The odds aren't too bad though

Well, I mean, there's the now-infamous story of how Kevin Smith didn't sign his NDA at Paisley Park, but that's also a pretty famous *exception*.

This might be a clever run-around to get the producer(s) more exposed publicly than they have before.

This suit, if successful, sounds like it would open some interesting doors that would get a lot more DCMA takedowns and suits against them...someone took a video at a party and someone in the background objects they can get a takedown because they didn't sign a release? I don't really know this is just what came to mind.

Quite frankly I don't know that this would be a bad thing. I've had a hell of a time keeping relatives from posting photos that include me on Facebook. I'd love to simply issue a takedown notice whenever I find out about one.

Options to my family and friends: Either keep me off of various internet sites, including FB, or stop including me in your photos. I'm fine with either decision, honestly.

Getting rights to stuff like that is already obscure enough as it is. I dont think we need any healing salt dumped into the wound.

Funny how the big media never seems to have a problem shutting down youtube videos left and right.

What's funny about it? "Big media" may be sleaze bags in some ways but they're also experienced professionals. They dot their i's and cross their t's when it comes to anything legal related and then some. They don't have issues with stuff like this because they don't tend to make such utterly amateur hour mistakes, everything is legally as cast in iron as possible.

... the anti-Islam footage that has spawned deadly protests and sparked a US backlash in the Middle East.

Stop perpetuating the myth that the footage caused any kind of attacks. It's generally thought that they were planned terrorist attacks, pending investigation by the FBI which will take oh... forty days or so.

Quote:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Wednesday suggested there was a link between the Qaeda franchise in North Africa and the attack at the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, that killed the American ambassador and three others.

The lawsuit is ridiculous though, even if she hadn't signed a release, that doesn't give her copyright control over the work, it just allows her to sue the production company. I expect it's more PR than anything, to distance herself from the mess.

She's an idiot for bringing more attention to herself with her public actions. She has absolutely no legal grounds for claiming copyright, so she has no chance of succeeding. Her best option is to shut up and change her look. She's in a bad position, but if she agreed to act in something without paying any attention to the script, she's an idiot anyway. And even if she didn't know what she was doing, she doesn't own the copyright. She's following a foolish course of action.

Why don't the Islamists file a DMCA take-down with Youtube saying the Prophet Mohammed is IP, and approval was not given by anyone of the Islamic community to allow that jointly-owned IP to be used in a film.

Why don't the Islamists file a DMCA take-down with Youtube saying the Prophet Mohammed is IP, and approval was not given by anyone of the Islamic community to allow that jointly-owned IP to be used in a film.

You could probably attemp to have it taken down on the basis of rights of privacy or publicity or something like that.

Attempt, unsuccessfully. The whole "privacy" in public debate was settled when the camera came along. If you're in public, the photographer doesn't need your explicit permission. At least in commercialization cases. Journalism and non-profit are in the clear in the US I think.

Unless she contributed to the development and creation of the storyline and other elements in the development and production of the film she has no claim.

Merely repeating "lines" on camera that someone gave her to recite does not give her a claim.

And furthermore - even under the DMCA - she has to produce proof that she has ownership of a copyright and that infringement has occurred. Google (or insert online entity here) yes must comply with DMCA mandates to be legally in the clear - BUT they are not at the behest of random individuals (inclduign movie and music studios) that want the law enforced.

Basic law - provide proof to a court - the court orders a given law be followed - compliance happens.

Crying foul does not mnean Google is violating anything. Most of the time Gogole is volunteering to take down content. They are not oblgiated by anyone randomly sending them requests** to do so. Except in the event of a court order.

Basic law has not changed people - those making accustions - even during the current onslaught of bullshit must still work within the law.

_____** (although - it would be funny as hell - if some folks got together and sent a bunch of DMCA take-down notices to Google to remove legit content maintained by the movie studios and see the studios having a hissy-fit over thier content being removed)

You could probably attemp to have it taken down on the basis of rights of privacy or publicity or something like that.

Attempt, unsuccessfully. The whole "privacy" in public debate was settled when the camera came along. If you're in public, the photographer doesn't need your explicit permission.

@ UltimateLemon -- just to add - it is not a matter of public vs private in this case - the plantiff was involved in the creation of a work. She knew going into it she was being filmed. What is going on is that she is having second-thoughts about the end results after the fact (looking at it with hind-sight)

On the same level as some 19-year old co-ed starring in a "dirty" home movie - then regretting it later on.

Actress Cindy Lee Garcia - she knew what she was doing - had a choice to be involved or not.

There is no crime against someone making a movie (or art project) and changing their mind or doing something different with the content of the project than what they originally told people going into the project. Unless there were specifically signed contracts that strictly limited what could and what could not be done with the footage. She has no case.

The public vs private thing - they could ahve shot all the footage indoors. Why do most people start using a camera ? To keep the footage locked in a closet for the rest of their lives - no - most photgraphers / videographers film content to be shown off to the public.

Was she filmed in secret without her knowledge ? No. Otherwise (in part) she would not be proclaiming to be an "actress".

You could probably attemp to have it taken down on the basis of rights of privacy or publicity or something like that.

Attempt, unsuccessfully. The whole "privacy" in public debate was settled when the camera came along. If you're in public, the photographer doesn't need your explicit permission. At least in commercialization cases. Journalism and non-profit are in the clear in the US I think.

That's going to depend on the occasion though. If you are in a position where you would reasonably expect priavcy, then you may have luck at taking it down.

Like say at a party and some random dude takes a video of you streaking through the house and posts it on Youtube?

@ UltimateLemon -- just to add - it is not a matter of public vs private in this case - the plantiff was involved in the creation of a work. She knew going into it she was being filmed. What is going on is that she is having second-thoughts about the end results after the fact (looking at it with hind-sight)

I know, I was responding to Morder Von Allem's post. Not about this which clearly isn't going to be about right of privacy (and her lawyer didn't approach it at that angle either anyway)

I think they just meant in general being caught in videos. Edited the post but like the edit it's not entirely a question of public vs private, more or less the use of the content. In this case it doesn't apply to the "actress" or a project like this. Unless it was non-profit...then she really shouldn't have any grounds.

What she should have done is what one man did years ago to the New York Times Sunday Magazine. I don't remember a lot of the details, but it boiled down to how they did a story on poverty, and used a photo of a black man standing on a corner on a crowded city street.

He claimed it defamed him because it portrayed him as impoverished and sued. She would most likely have a much better case against the film producers than a DMCA claim against YouTube. As has been pointed out, she did not sign a release, or at least she claims she didn't. There are plenty of ways to get this taken care of.

That Google refuses to not pull the video should at least cause them to review their terms of service. And religious fanatics need to get a clue about how calling attention to something brings it more attention.

I think they just meant in general being caught in videos. Edited the post but like the edit it's not entirely a question of public vs private, more or less the use of the content. In this case it doesn't apply to the "actress" or a project like this. Unless it was non-profit...then she really shouldn't have any grounds.

In this case, like almost any commercial ventures, she won't be able to do jack without some kind of documentation of contract proving she has copyright ownership.

As far as I know, she can't even prove that she was duped by the director anyway.

What she should have done is what one man did years ago to the New York Times Sunday Magazine. I don't remember a lot of the details, but it boiled down to how they did a story on poverty, and used a photo of a black man standing on a corner on a crowded city street.

He claimed it defamed him because it portrayed him as impoverished and sued. She would most likely have a much better case against the film producers than a DMCA claim against YouTube. As has been pointed out, she did not sign a release, or at least she claims she didn't. There are plenty of ways to get this taken care of.

That Google refuses to not pull the video should at least cause them to review their terms of service. And religious fanatics need to get a clue about how calling attention to something brings it more attention.

Her claiming that she didn't sign a release doesn't make any sense though. She made a commercial movie. It's reasonable to assume that she knew the movie would be sold and viewd by the public.

I think they just meant in general being caught in videos. Edited the post but like the edit it's not entirely a question of public vs private, more or less the use of the content. In this case it doesn't apply to the "actress" or a project like this. Unless it was non-profit...then she really shouldn't have any grounds.

In this case, like almost any commercial ventures, she won't be able to do jack without some kind of documentation of contract proving she has copyright ownership.

As far as I know, she can't even prove that she was duped by the director anyway.

I wonder it would matter much. This sounds basically like most if not all of the lawsuits over Borat and I think most of those were dismissed.

... the anti-Islam footage that has spawned deadly protests and sparked a US backlash in the Middle East.

Stop perpetuating the myth that the footage caused any kind of attacks. It's generally thought that they were planned terrorist attacks, pending investigation by the FBI which will take oh... forty days or so.

Woah woah, slow down there buddy.

The footage *clearly* caused the protests. No one doubts that.

The organized attacks used those protests as cover under/during which to operate, even if the schedule had to be moved up to take advantage of the opportunity.

Only folks with a particular political bent are trying to make the case that there's some conspiracy to say that the videos caused the attack. While the language may be imprecise, there's no doubt that the videos caused the protests, and the protests, in turn, provided opportunity for the attacks to take place.

She's in a bad position, but if she agreed to act in something without paying any attention to the script, she's an idiot

Apparently, most of the actors didn't get a script, just pages on set, and they thought they were doing a super-low-budget indie adventure movie. You can tell in a few places where there are terribly obvious voice overdubs. Given how over-the-top "offensive" it is (I use the term offensive extremely lightly, being offended at something that ridiculous is like being offended at an SNL skit), I don't think they could have convinced many people to actually risk themselves like that given what was probably very crappy pay.

I think they just meant in general being caught in videos. Edited the post but like the edit it's not entirely a question of public vs private, more or less the use of the content. In this case it doesn't apply to the "actress" or a project like this. Unless it was non-profit...then she really shouldn't have any grounds.

In this case, like almost any commercial ventures, she won't be able to do jack without some kind of documentation of contract proving she has copyright ownership.

As far as I know, she can't even prove that she was duped by the director anyway.

I wonder it would matter much. This sounds basically like most if not all of the lawsuits over Borat and I think most of those were dismissed.

I'm not really familiar with Borat lawsuits. Although I don't think Borat dubbed over the actors though.